broadened further in the provisions of the 2014 Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code, which defines a wide range of offenses against personal integrity. B. Considerations of the Court 77. The Court will proceed to analyze the violations of rights resulting from the detention and subsequent death of Joffre Aroca. The Court notes that it is an undisputed fact, as the State’s own institutions have decided, that in the early hours of February 27, 2001, Mr. Aroca Palma was detained by police officers who drove him to the esplanade of the then Estadio Isidro Romero, where, hours later, his body was found. B.1. Right to personal liberty 78. The Court holds that the essence of Article 7 of the American Convention is the protection of the liberty of the individual against any arbitrary or illegal interference by the State. 59 The Court has also found that “improper actions” of police officials “in their interaction with those they should protect represents one of the main threats to the right to personal liberty, which, when it is violated, results in a risk that other rights will be violated, such as to personal integrity and, in some cases, to life.” In this regard, in order to address this threat, it is crucial for the State, through its agents, to observe its “duty to use procedures that are in keeping with the law and respect the fundamental rights of every individual subject to its jurisdiction.” 60 79. As has been noted on a number of previous occasions, the article cited above contains two distinct types of regulations: one general, the other specific. The general one is contained in the first subparagraph: “[e]very person has the right to personal liberty and security”; while the specific one is composed of a series of guarantees that protect the right not to be deprived of liberty unlawfully (Art. 7(2)) or in an arbitrary manner (Art. 7(3)), to be informed of the reasons for the detention and the charges brought against him (Art. 7(4)), to judicial control of the deprivation of liberty and the reasonable length of time of the remand in custody (Art. 7(5)), to contest the lawfulness of the arrest (Art. 7(6)), and not to be detained for debt (Art. 7(7)). Any violation of subparagraphs 2 to 7 of Article 7 of the Convention necessarily entails the violation of Article 7(1) thereof. 61 80. Deprivation of liberty is illegal when the material and formal aspects of the applicable domestic legal order are not observed. 62 Arbitrariness is not only unlawful, but is also broader in that it includes elements of impropriety, injustice and unpredictability. Thus, the deprivation of liberty “for grounds and by methods that, while classified as legal, could be deemed to be incompatible with the respect for the fundamental rights of the individual because it was, among others, unreasonable, unforeseeable or lacking in proportionality, would be arbitrary.” 63 81. In order to avoid illegal or arbitrary detentions, Article 7 of the Convention establishes a requirement in paragraphs 4 and 5 to give notice of the reasons for the detention and for judicial control of it. The first “refers to two guarantees for the person who is being detained: 59 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 84, and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 62. 60 Cf. Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 86, and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 424, supra, para. 102. 61 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 51, and Case of Habbal et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 62. 62 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 57, and Case of González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and reparations. Judgment of September 20, 2021. Series C No. 436, para. 104. 63 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 47, and Case of González et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 97. 17